+ Using Legal and Evidence-Based Practices in Pretrial Decision - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
+ Using Legal and Evidence-Based Practices in Pretrial Decision Making + Pretrial Justice Institute, 1977 2 The nation's only non-profit organization dedicated to advancing safe, fair and effective pretrial practices and policies. We
The nation's only non-profit organization dedicated to advancing
We do this by:
Educating key stakeholders Moving stakeholders to action Working in key states to advocate for change Developing messages, stories, and media coverage in support of change Connecting local jurisdictions to long-term TA providers who can help
recommend and implement change.
2
3
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear, 2011
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pretrial Detainee Population on June 30 Sentenced Population on June 30
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
4
5
Maintain employment, family ties, residence, etc. Assist Counsel Access to treatment/services Protection of victim/public Public costs of detention Disruption of case process Harsher dispositions
6
7
Presumption of Innocence Right to Counsel Right Against Self-incrimination Right to Due Process of the Law Right to Equal Protection Under the Law Right to Bail that is Not Excessive
Public Safety Problem Best Match Best Match Increases Recidivism and Costly
8
High Risk Low Risk Out In Jail
National Association of Counties
(2009)
American Probation and Parole
Association (2010)
American Jail Association (2011) American Council of Chief
Defenders (2011)
Association of Prosecuting
Attorneys (2011)
International Association of Chiefs
American Bar Association and
American Civil Liberties Union (2011)
National Sheriffs’ Association
(2012)
National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers (2012)
Conference of Chief Justices (2013
expected)
9
The purpose of bail is to assure the presence of the defendant. Bail
Bail must be fixed for each individual defendant according to
Pretrial release permits the unhampered preparation of defense,
10
The government has a legitimate interest in preventing further
Provides the constitutionally required procedural safeguards to
11
12
Charge based Easy, quick to use Represents “what to expect”
13
Static/one dimensional Fail to factor individual risks and strengths of defendant Legislative mandate considerations Legally, can’t use money to address danger
Empirically, money isn’t associated with safety 47% of felony defendants who have money bail set are released, risk
levels unknown
Practically, no individual conditions tailored to mitigate risk
14
15
16
Risk-based use of citations in lieu of arrest Early screening of charges
Diversion, problem-solving courts, dismissal
Early appointment of defense counsel (bail hearing) Pretrial risk assessment for release/detain decision
Detention with due process Release with risk/need based conditions Monitoring of conditions imposed
Accountable and transparent reporting
To court of compliance with conditions Process and outcome measures of releases by type, risk level
17
Screening by seasoned prosecutors
Charge review Case strength Eligibility determinations for diversion, problem solving courts
Early triage
Saves time Saves money Reduces chance of inadvertently increasing future risk
Community Prosecution
18
Evidence-based Empirically-derived Validated Used for decades in other fields
Health, education, car insurance, national security, etc. 19
One way ticket/last minute Paid in cash No luggage Avoids eye contact Attire inconsistent with
Avoids crowds at
20
21
Statistically measures probability
Appearance in court Community safety
22
Data sample is drawn and examined Shared characteristics measured for predictive strength Risk level assigned according to probabilities (low, medium, high) Model is tested to prevent unintended bias
23
Current charge Other pending cases Criminal history Failure to appear history Residence Employment History of substance abuse or
24
Case manager supervision GPS supervision Drug testing Stay away orders Curfew Treatment/therapy
25
Must drive assignment of mitigation strategies
Saves money Saves time Reduces chances of inadvertently increasing risk
“Lower” risk defendants:
More likely to fail when released to supervision compared with similar
released on recognizance
“Moderate” and “higher” risk defendants:
Less likely to fail when released to supervision than similar defendants
released on recognizance
26
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Low Below Average Above Average High
Probability of Rearrest Probability of FTA
27
In 2011 Pretrial risk assessment was legislatively mandated to
Overall Release rate: 70% Non-financial release rate: 66% Rearrest rate: 8% Failure to appear rate: 10%
28
Bond schedules in use nearly everywhere Detention provisions not statute or unused Pretrial risk assessment done in maybe 15-20% of jurisdictions Many counties lack necessary options for supervision, treatment,
29
We don’t have the time We don’t have the money Our community is very
30
Funded by the Public Welfare Foundation and conducted by Lake
Five focus groups of undecided, or ambivalent, on reform of the cash bail
white, non-college educated women in Richmond, VA; 3/19/2012 mixed-gender African Americans in Richmond, VA; mixed-gender Latinos in Denver, CO; 3/22/2012 white, non-college educated men in Denver, CO; white, college-educated women in Denver, CO.
Telephone poll June 7-13, 2012
815 adults, 18 years or older, nationwide who are registered and likely to vote
in the 2012 General Election; margin of error for this poll is +/-3.4%.
31
There is overwhelming public support for risk assessment—even in
At the outset, more than three-quarters of voters support using risk-
Majorities support this reform strongly. Moreover, support barely
32
A majority of the electorate strongly supports using risk-based screening tools instead of cash bail bonds to determine whether defendants should be released from jail before trial.
Some have proposed using risk-based screening tools instead of cash bail bonds to determine whether defendants should be released from jail before trial. This risk assessment would take into account such factors as the nature of the offense in question, the suspects criminal history, as well as their employment, residency, drug use history and mental health. Under this system, high-risk defendants would be held in jail until trial, and low-risk defendants would be released with conditions and be monitored and supervised. Would you support or oppose this proposal, or are you undecided?
Support Oppose Undecided/Don't Know
Initial Support for Reform
Darker colors indicate intensity.
33
34
The vast majority of voters believes that detaining someone in jail is more expensive than releasing someone based on risk assessment and monitoring, including a majority who strongly believes that view.
And which do you think is more expensive for taxpayers detaining someone in jail or releasing someone based on risk- assessment and monitoring the person?
Release Detain Cost the Same (vol.) Don't Know
More Expensive for Taxpayers
Darker colors indicate intensity.
35
Public support for change from bond schedule to risk assessment is
They think you’re already doing this They think it will save money while not compromising their safety
You can get better public safety outcomes (short term and long term)
Upholding the bail laws means calling for individualized
Technical assistance and training are available
36
Prosecutor Fellowship
Application process
Prosecutors Focus Group/Council Publications
Toolkits Evidence-based Decision Making Initiative (NIC) Justice Reinvestment Initiative (BJA)
Prosecutor Coordinators/Continuing Ed
37
Pretrial Justice Working Group
National Judicial Council on Pretrial Justice National Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court
Administrators
Defenders Council Sheriffs/Chiefs Council
ABA Multi-State Criminal Justice Reform Initiative
38
The APA project was supported by Grant No. 2011-DP-BX-K051 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.
39
40